Francois Thomas, Marie Cozette Mience, Joanic Masson, Amal Bernoussi. The Journal of Men’s Studies. Volume 22, Issue 2, Spring 2014.
There are about 7,000 new cases of HIV in France each year. The epidemic touches every demographic, but among gay men, it has been rising, despite the fact that the gay community is historically better informed and at the center of the struggle against HIV/AIDS. If we look at the trend line of new cases of HIV in France, the total number has declined over the last 10 years, with an especially significant dip in the middle of the 2000s. There were 6,088 new cases in 2011, down from 7,451 in 2003 and a peak of 7,670 in 2004. If we look at the figures for men who have sex with men (MSM), one can see that the number of new cases is clearly higher (data specific to gay men does not exist, as they would be biased and track an identity rather than a behavior). It’s the only trend line that doesn’t show significant declines, contrary to that for all other groups. In some cases it actually increases over a period where the others decline, such as the period between 2008 and 2010.
The Numbers: Rising Cases Among Gay Men
These figures raise an obvious question—why do the numbers for gay men run against the grain? The statistical category itself could include both gays and bisexuals. The numbers might not be specific to gays only, but they do tend to lean in that direction. How can it be that gay men, historically more affected by and at risk for HIV/AIDS, are still so exposed to infection?
The statistics on condom use, or rather their non-use, are even more striking. The rate of condom use declines year after year while cases of unprotected sex multiply and are, for some, becoming a conscious choice, especially when it comes to the practice of barebacking. These new infections raise questions about attitudes toward risk, risk taking and the violation of prevention messaging. However, we can’t consider such questions about risky sexual behavior without taking into consideration the idea of desire and its relationship to pleasure and transgression. Knowing that the possible consequences include contracting a disease as serious as HIV/AIDS, what motivations could be behind such sexually risky behavior?
The Perception of Homosexuality
Over the last two decades, the perception of homosexuality has profoundly changed. Its place in society has evolved, and, as a result, “gayness” has found itself transformed. The removal of homosexuality from psychiatric diagnostics—first in 1973 in North America and then in 1983 in Europe—took gays out their pigeon hole as deviants and perverts. Improvements in their legal standing—the adoption of civil unions in France in 1999 and more recently, following the lead of other countries, of gay marriage—has raised awareness and improved “tolerance” in the society at large.
Homosexuality may be more accepted by society, but it remains more vexing on an individual basis. It is easier to be tolerant when it affects other people rather than one’s inner circle. Thus, homophobic attitudes endure, even if the way they are expressed has changed. They have become more discrete and more sophisticated, with harassment and persecution replacing physical attacks, which still exist but are increasingly rare. This behavior is particularly damaging, as it affects the formation of gay identity.
Sexual Orientation and Marginalization
When a boy has not yet recognized that he is gay, either because he doesn’t see himself as different or because he hasn’t recognized the difference yet, such difference may be noticed by others who bring it to his attention with insults. “Sissy,” “fag,” and “pussy” are epithets thrown at some boys. Even if the boy doesn’t know what they mean with respect to his sexuality, he recognizes their vehemence. This name-calling sets gay boys and men apart, putting them in some other, lesser category of man. The images of him as a “girly man” who “takes it in the ass,” is submissive and dominated. Even his sexuality is lesser, recalling again the work of Bourdieu (2002) on masculine domination. How then can one reclaim masculinity when others say that one is less than a man? After all, the popular vernacular would have us believe that a gay man isn’t a man at all.
The Discovery of AIDS as a “Gay Disease”
Beginning with its discovery in 1983, AIDS has always been thought of as a gay disease. The French press (Liberation) called it “the gay cancer”. It was presented as a disease that affected only gay men. Considered a modern plague, AIDS terrorized and was synonymous with physical and psychic degeneration followed by an early death. The conditions of its emergence and of its evolution thus make AIDS inseparable in the public consciousness from homosexuality. It has also made it inseparable from gay identity, as HIV/AIDS overshadows sexual encounters between gays far more than it does between heterosexuals: “Has this guy got it? Will I catch it?”
The AIDS of 2010 is no longer the AIDS of the 1980s. With the discovery of antiviral medications, AIDS has lost its deadly reputation among gay men, transforming itself rather into a chronic illness. A decline in the visibility of treatment has accompanied this change in perception. As a result, ideas about the risks of infection have changed. Today, it seems less dangerous, in the collective imagination, to have unprotected sex than it did ten or fifteen years ago. So what does an infection mean today? What does it mean to live with HIV/AIDS?
Still speaking historically, gay men, thanks to the slant of the risks, were quick to contain breakouts, notably by modifying sexual acts, thereby creating a shield against the epidemic. So-called “safer sex” advocates the use of condoms for all sexual acts—always in the case of anal sex—but also indicated for other, less invasive, practices like mutual masturbation.
Several studies have set about understanding the motivations leading to unsafe practices, be they occasional or systematic. According to Rouche (1995), sexual risk taking has always existed and that it’s inherent in any sexual life. An example would be syphilis, and bare-backing is just another point on the continuum of risky practices (Le Talec, 2007). We have noted that habits change as a function of each individual’s life’s journey, and hypothesize that unprotected sex could be a way of reinforcing one’s masculinity. Being HIV positive could even be the mark of a “masculine” homosexuality, a way to be gay without the feminine stereotype.
Internalized Homophobia
Gay identity is based a hierarchy of sexualities, with heterosexuality at the top, as well as on insults that equate homosexuality with a kind of feminization. If homophobia is widespread, it’s because it’s founded on a hetero-centric view. It can describe the various representations and values that hold heterosexuality to be normative in the realm of both sexuality and identity. The organization of a sexual hierarchy, where heterosexuality sits at the top and homosexuality is relegated to a lower rung, is based on this hetero-centrism, a default belief that everybody is the same, and therefore, heterosexual. As a result, homosexuals are cut off from their right to be individuals.
Internalized homophobia, by way of being a coping mechanism, is one of the elements that forms gay identity. At least at first, it allows one to protect oneself, but its effects eventually become deleterious for self-esteem. Williamson (2000) defines internalized homophobia as the sum of the negative and hurtful ideas and feelings that gay men and lesbians experience about their sexuality. In order to exist in a space other than the one that society imposes, gays must overcome homophobia, tear themselves away from society’s definition of them and eliminate the prejudices and inequalities that make homosexuality a veritable doomed identity. Several researchers have looked at the effects of prejudice on the construction of identity.
Stigma and Self-Identity
Allport (1954) studied stigmatized individuals and leaning on character theory and victimization, has written about defense mechanisms. Early on, gay men learn to hide their homosexuality by hiding the signals that could give them away. Meyer and Dean (1998) propose that hostility to gays negatively shapes their self-perception and pushes them toward weak self-esteem. Seeing one’s self as socially stigmatized reinforces self-hatred (Locke, 1998). The effect of stigmatization on the construction of self-identity was described by Plummer (1995) and later by Cody and Welch (1997). For gay men. the feeling of stigmatization brought by homosexuality pushes them toward negative thoughts and reinforces the feeling of alienation and exclusion. Feelings of shame and being closed off in secrecy or silence are the result.
Shidlo (1994) shows us that the internalization of prejudice leads to psychological distress. Bremmer and Hillin (1993) observe that it leads to an ego-dystonic identity, an internal conflict with one’s sexuality. Thus, faced with a hostile environment of anti-gay violence and victimization, hiding one’s sexual orientation becomes an adaptive process, an act of self-preservation (Herek & Berrill, 1992).
Brooks (1981) applies the concept of minority stress to internalized homophobia. The concept comes from the study of marginalized minority groups. Such groups endure a stress bom from the sum total of the experiences of its members. Brooks also believes that such adaptation takes a toll. Meyer (1995) describes five consequences of this psychological distress associated with internalized homophobia: demoralization, guilt, sexual problems, suicide and traumatic stress linked to AIDS.
A correlation between risky sexual acts and homophobia has also been found. Ego-dystonic gay men are more vulnerable to internalized homophobia, and their self-esteem is weaker, which can lead them to take risks. They can also be more likely to abuse alcohol, which itself leads to poor decisions. Ego-dystonic gay men are also less comfortable with their sexual identity. Familiarity with prevention alone is not enough to discourage unprotected anal sex. According to Or et al (1994), escapism is a contributing factor to unprotected anal sex, and ego-dystonic gays feel a greater need to escape than syntonic gay men.
Homophobia
Smith (1971), an American psychologist, coined the term “homophobia” to describe hostile behaviors, whether explicit or implicit, of violence and aggression toward individuals because of their sexual or romantic preferences. Like xenophobia, sexism or social discrimination, homophobia appears as a rejection of the different. It’s moved by the fear and even dread of homosexuals, and its manifestations are spread by rejection to the point of hate. It is directed toward individuals—be they gay or merely supposedly gay—and toward the mannerisms and signals associated with homosexuality.
The power of homophobia is its presence in all facets of an individual’s life. It can manifest itself in family life, the social circle and larger social spaces. Any man can thus find himself confronted at any time with a strike at his identity. Welzer-Lang (1994) defines homophobia by presenting it as “fear of homosexuality and fear of contact with homosexuals” (p. 15). He shows how homophobia is a kind of sexism, itself defined as “discrimination toward someone of another sex.” In the sexist mindset, masculinity and femininity are well defined and stratified by the qualities and defects inherent in each sex. What’s more, it’s one’s biological sex, assigned by fate, that determines membership in a gender group.
Homophobia is thus the internalization of sexism and represents an “act of power,” of domination. During social interactions, homophobia brings about active discrimination, like hurling insults, or passive discrimination, like hostile looks, which result in a feeling of rejection. Such passive discrimination is a part of the concept of “invisible hegemony” (Browne, 2007), a paradigm where everybody is assumed to be heterosexual. While heterosexuals can show what they are without fear or hostility, gay men must wear a mask to live their homosexuality in peace. The mask hides all visible signals, anything that sets them apart and stigmatizes them as non-heterosexuals.
The Role of Insult
Insult, like the homophobia of which it is a symptom, forms a large part of the context of gay identity development. According to Eribon (2000), insults highly affect the very construction of identity in the sense that even if the insult isn’t directed at the person specifically in the form of homophobic comments, it is exists in the background and circulates freely. Thus, insults like “fag” or “you take it in the ass,” become the pinnacle of verbal abuse as early as elementary school. These insults attack one’s sexuality, rendering the victim inferior. Bourdieu (2002) explains how the missionary position evokes the domination of one man over another. It suggests a submission, a yielding by the “bottom,” which, by extension, makes of him an object of ridicule.
The Role of Internalized Homophobia in the Construction of Gay Identity
Canadian authors Ryan and Frappier (1994) have described the phases that homosexual men experience as they come to grips with their sexuality. First, there’s a phase of denial in which he refuses to accept his same-sex attraction. During this stage, he is either unaware that he is attracted to people of the same sex or he refuses to accept it. The second phase is that of internalized homophobia. This phase is unavoidable. The person becomes aware of his homosexual attraction as something like a handicap, a fault so detrimental that it com promises his own self-esteem. This results in either a pathological reaction (“I’m not normal. I have to see a psychiatrist”—or a religious reaction—”I’m a pervert. I’m not worthy of His love…At this stage, he not only faces rejection, but he internalizes it.
In the third phase, he begins to understand that he’s inherently different than other people. At this point, he either regains his self-esteem or succeeds in building a new self-esteem for himself. He leaves behind the self-hatred but still considers himself to be different than other gay men, whom he still views as sick or perverted. He continues to look down on them. The fourth phase is that of acceptance of his sexuality. It’s not the same as coming out—it’s not about revealing one’s self to others. On the contrary, it’s an internal shift. It’s about loving one’s self, but it’s also to see other gay men as worthy of respect as well. Let us note here that homophobia can also be passive when the homosexuality is denied, ignored as if it wasn’t a part of the person’s being.
Barebacking
How then can we begin to understand what motivates gay men to engage in unprotected sex? One of the identity questions that gay men have to confront is how to accept themselves as men in the masculine sense of the term. Barebacking offers an alternative to the accepted image of homosexuality, which society has equated with femininity, by offering hyper-masculinity in its place. There are multiple definitions of barebacking. For some, it’s all unprotected sexual activity. For others, it’s an act of self-liberation, a way to move past the specter of HIV/AIDS. With barebacking, you don’t worry about contracting AIDS. At its heart, barebacking is defined by the practice of deliberately unsafe sex without protection, causing a sense of pride and an eroticization of the risk.
Etymologically, the term barebacking comes from the world of horse riding, specifically the rodeo circuit, where it means to ride without a saddle. Thus, it evokes the image of the cowboy, those mythic representations of the solitary, self-sufficient man. The cowboy symbolizes virility and freedom, attributes found in the practice of barebacking with its tattooed, muscled bodies and its unfettered sexuality.
Barebacking makes the body inscrutable, according to Dean (2009). By erasing homosexual or heterosexual categories, it allows for sex between men without feeling gay. It breaks down sexual categories because it does not belong to one itself. Instead it creates a new domain complete with its own social behaviors structured around its own norms, rituals and language. Barebacking is also an exchange of bodily fluids, of the veneration of semen. Contact with sperm becomes a necessary part of the sex act, with ejaculation on the body or the face, in the mouth or in the anus. The exchange of sperm is like offering a gift among the barebacking adept, a tribute to the mechanism that gives life, even if the source of that life could turn out to be toxic. Beyond simple seroconversion, the idea is that the ejaculate represents a new beginning, a revival. Tim Dean (2009) sees in it the exchange of a sign of masculinity, of virility but also of the principle at the source of life itself. The semen brings vitality, the man’s life force, his being. By this eroticization of contaminated semen during sex, there is, he says, a replenishment of virility. There is no active/passive division for those who bareback.
The idea of contamination is essential to barebacking. The sexuality of barebacking is closely connected to the virus. That is to say, the virus is at the heart of bareback sexuality, not just an associated risk. The exchange, the transmission, the risk of infection is the whole point. Why? It’s not, as one might assume at first blush, simply a careless behavior or even an effort to reclaim the pleasure that would be reduced by wearing a condom. It calls to mind Cronenberg’s film, Antiviral (2013), where celebrity-obsessed fans, in the hopes of sharing a bit of their idol’s lives, inject themselves with the viruses, even deadly ones, that have infected their favorite stars.
What Role Then Does the Virus Have in Barebacking?
Barebackers use the biohazard tattoo to identify one another. This symbol is taken from the mark affixed to containers of contaminated biological waste. The tattoo itself thus becomes a warning of a biological menace. Rather than a symbol of protection for safety’s sake, here it operates in the opposite sense, as an invitation to danger. The barebackers adapt so as to separate themselves from social stereotypes. Their singles ads, for example, warn that “fairies” and “queens” need not respond. Thus, they recreate the split between dominant and submissive described by Bourdieu (2002). This time though, the virus creates the power dynamic.
For many, to have HIV is to be gay, and HIV is synonymous with fear and rejection—serophobia. Barebackers turn this paradigm on its head by fetishizing HIV. The virus, as a symbol, becomes necessary to the sex act. Running the risk of infection proves one’s masculinity by way of a physical test. Thus, HIV is associated with courage and strength. Testing positive becomes proof of this courage, almost a point of pride. HIV has changed status from a negative to a positive, something that must be internalized and owned by some gay men. Those who have tested positive, erstwhile pathologized, become attractive. To get infected is to overcome the fear of HIV; it’s to become the master of one’s sexuality through an act of emancipation.
Today, a positive test HIV test is no longer a death sentence. A patient may never even develop AIDS, thanks to the available treatments. One can, therefore, be infected without being sick. According to Dean (2009), barebacking separates HIV from sickness and death, giving it a connotation of pride, of honor. To be an HIV carrier is to join a brotherhood, to establish a social link. One can equate the gift of HIV with the exchange of blood oaths, or the transmission of DNA through kinship or by insemination, in essence, carrying a man’s baby.
We are dealing with a behavior linked to the unconscious, the realm of that which escapes description, an experience beyond words. It’s similar to the way a first sexual experience weighs on one’s future sexuality. In this manner, gay sexuality is associated with physical danger, with the unforeseeable and with anonymity.
Conclusion
Barebacking projects an image of gay male virility, rejecting the feminized image of the gay man and making of barebackers as real men. The risk is not reduced to a lack of prevention, as the health implications are well known. The practice appears as a response to the hetero-normative social view. And in opposition to the only risk perceived from the outside, barebacking offers a reconstruction of self-esteem by accessing a new masculine identity at the cost of seroconversion.